<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (10) TMI 990 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171630</link>
    <description>Tariff classification depending on a specific scientific parameter requires reliable quantified evidence; the department did not establish the linear coefficient of expansion with sufficient precision, so the more specific classification was not sustained and the importer&#039;s classification was accepted. Allegations of misdeclaration were also not supported, because the goods were examined as opal glassware and the bill of entry description did not show material concealment. Rejection of transaction value had to follow the Customs Valuation Rules and proper consideration of comparable imports and the importer&#039;s explanation; that exercise was not lawfully completed, so the valuation finding was not sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:10:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 990 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171630</link>
      <description>Tariff classification depending on a specific scientific parameter requires reliable quantified evidence; the department did not establish the linear coefficient of expansion with sufficient precision, so the more specific classification was not sustained and the importer&#039;s classification was accepted. Allegations of misdeclaration were also not supported, because the goods were examined as opal glassware and the bill of entry description did not show material concealment. Rejection of transaction value had to follow the Customs Valuation Rules and proper consideration of comparable imports and the importer&#039;s explanation; that exercise was not lawfully completed, so the valuation finding was not sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>